Click on image to enlarge
The problem is that a 16 or 17 year old, with no GCSE's above C grade, is really quite low down the list when it comes to picking amongst job applicants. The very poor job market means that many of the people in this category are not getting that first job they need to gain experience.
The problem is that if a 16/17 year old does not get a first job until then when will they? The possibility of a lifetime of short term, casual jobs is quite likely and this equates to a lifetime of poor living standards.
So giving these people a start is important and a new scheme has been announced. Essentially employers will be given a subsidy to employ 16 and 17 year olds who qualify. Hopefully the skills they gain will allow their continued employment.
This is a supply-side policy. It is targeted, it affects the costs of firms and it is expanding the productive potential of the economy. Like many supply side policies the effects will take some time to come through and are far from certain to work. Maybe the firms will take the money, employ the young workers for a short time and then release them having benefited from cheap labour. Of course those people do now have work experience, so some good comes of it.
The budget, £126 million, is small but as each employer will only get around £2000 per employee the measure could benefit a lot of NEET's. But is it enough? That remains to be seen.
I like the sound of this policy and it sounds like a good long term plan as it is emerging that supply side policies are indeed the way forward. However it must come into question is this the best way to grow at the moment? We are struggling to grow in the short term and is government money spent in such a way really what we need at present? The policy provides good incentives for employers to go out and start giving the NEET population a chance but would the money not be better spent trying to stabilise the markets and provide growth - leaving such ideas until we are showing better signs of recovery?
ReplyDeleteSurely the root of the problem lies at the education system? Insted of subsidising NEETS to provide the incentive to look for work (encouraging them to believe that they can fail at school and still have a job waiting for them, perhaps a scheme of apprecnticeships would be better? This would cause longer term growth, rather than keeping a percentage of the population in work for only a short amount of time.
ReplyDeleteIn less than two terms time a lot of 18 year olds are going to br trying to get a job. unless they are very lucky they are only going to increase the number of NEETs in the country which is really worrying
ReplyDeleteThough it seems wrong for the less intelligent people in todays society that if you are rather stupid you will not get a high income and standard of living in life, that is how employment works. This in itself shoudl be an incentive for the less able to work harder. I believe that you do not haveto be particularly clever to do well at GCSE's or in some ways A levels. It is more the motivation, revising and working hard for these people. It is there problem that they haven't done well in gcse's, these people must face up to the consequence whcih is clearly set out for them from the moment secondary school starts. I believe instead of helping out the current NEET'S we should try and reduce the number of NEET'S in tbhe future by (sas Holly Cavill said) improving the problems in the education system. Give students better trained and clearly well knowledgable teachers, be more assertive about revision in the syllabus and directly address each student fairly and give clear understanding as to the future at a young age so they understand how to become successful. Wasting money on NEET'S for these underdeveloped unmotivated and quite simply unsuccessful kids is unfair.
ReplyDelete